A Comparative Study of the Self-Cleaning and Filtration Performance of Suspension Plasma-Sprayed TiO2 Ultrafiltration and Microfiltration Membranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the performance of photocatalytic titanium dioxide microfiltration membranes with an average pore size of approximately 180 nm and ultrafiltration membranes with an average pore size of around 40 nm fabricated with the suspension plasma spray process. The membranes were evaluated for their filtration performance using SiO2 particles of different sizes and polyethylene oxide with molecular weights of 20 kDa to 1000 kDa, and the fouling parameters were characterized. The rejection rate was enhanced by increasing the thickness of the membranes. This effect was more pronounced with the ultrafiltration membranes. The rejection rate of the ultrafiltration membrane was improved significantly after filling the larger pores on the surface with agglomerates of titanium dioxide nanoparticles. The self-cleaning performance of the membranes was assessed under visible light. Both ultrafiltration and microfiltration membranes showed a flux recovery under visible light illumination due to the photocatalytic activity of titanium dioxide. The membranes also show a flux recovery of more than 90%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".